I'm pretty sure the celebs' contracts say they won't be filmed in the toilet. Whether that means there aren't any cameras or just that the footage isn't broadcast I don't know. I don't agree that they would have to have them for health and safety reasons. No other workplace requires that so it's a strange argument.

I doubt if there are cameras in toilets, but they all wear personal micro phones. BB has probably reviewed recordings including stuff that may have not heard on show and then made there decision.

I don't think it would be health and safety either. More, ensuring that there isn't a place where the celebs can go and communicate privately (or have assignations) without them seeing - even if thay are contractually obliged never to broadcast it and limit the number of people at Endemol that see it.

Not as far as I know. But no one is saying he did either.

Yes it was. First of all he said he didn't touch or grope her. Then he said he barely touched her.

She on the other hand immediately said that he flipped her robe and got out her boob. However then in the diary room she said he opened her robe and exposed her boob. I think it is hard to say if he 'properly' touched it but he probably grazed it when opening the robe and even that is enough.

Legally just touching her clothing is enough. The intent was there to move her clothing to see what was underneath - it doesn't matter his reason or alleged reason, he wasn't invited to do so.

There are plenty of people on here in other threads saying he did!!

They are accusing him of sexual assault which means for them to accuse him of that they must be saying he touched her boob??

I think that if he grazed it when opening the robe, he might have said he didn't touch her meaning he hadn't deliberately touched her, then later said he barely couched her meaning the amount of contact was minimal. In real-time, real life, people don't always phrase things in the best or clearest way.

However, I think his story was all over the place for other reasons. At one point he even seemed to be saying he thought she might be flirting.


What law(s) do you have in mind?

She may not have been talking literally, was emotional etc. There could be any number of reasons why she described the 'effect' of the touching rather than literally, what he touched. If he only touched the dressing gown and her boob fell out then she may, in the heat of the moment, say that he pulled out her boob, which is what happened as an effect but was not what literally happened. After that she has to repeat it every time otherwise her story is not consistent and someone will spot the inconsistency.

There is endless speculation about this but we didn't see what happened.
How can we really judge this scenario? It will always be her word against his.

he could have denied it and didnt...

People still saying he pulled her boob out?
All she said was he pulled on her robe and 'put' her boob out, clearly her boob fell out as he pulled on her robe.

I'm pretty sure he also said he 'barely touched it' referring to the robe but I would have to go back and watch.

It's disgusting how all the online papers and that tellymix etc have it described as groping or grabbing her boob and many, many posters on this forum.

but they gave the same story, what do you mean her word against his? he hasnt denied what he did.

His two opposing statements would suggest that the man was too drunk to recall clearly what actually happened. The point is did he do it deliberately thinking it was OK to make a pass at her? Or was he just so drunk he didn't know what he was doing?

I agree Cheeses don't know how people have got 'Groping' her Boob ,from what she said It was clear to me that her Boob Fell out from the tugging her gown aside as opposed to him literally pulling it out with his hands

He should not have touched her dressing gown even if he thought she had a bikini on or not. She went in there to help him not to be touched up. She said straight away she wasn't comfortable with what he did before she walked out of the toilet, and she had every right to be upset.
He over stepped the mark, he might not of intentionally meant to scare her but he did and I hope he gets the help he needs to over come his problems as he seems to be very troubled.

Either way i still think he was out of order. If someone I just met started opening my clothes, whatever their motives, I wouldnt like it at all. And he admitted he did do it.

Are they? I'd have thought voyeurism was the nearest offence given that he didn't touch her breast. There was no offence committed IMO but I'm no lawyer.

Jeremy admitted it

If they were to have a camera in the toilets then the producers would see the HM's doing both number 1's and number 2's and pleasuring themselves

Don't think that would work

Yeah in the "he got kicked out over that Seriously?" thread!!

OP has her own camera in there and saw groping, apparently, when even the victim didn't.

They do on civilian BB!

Is everyone forgetting Katie's epilepsy?

I'd be astonished if they didn't have cameras in there. It would be massively negligent of them.

Do you even read replies when you make threads ? you just seem to ignore everything anyone says

I would be very surprised indeed if there were no cameras in the toilets, for various security and safety reasons. There will be contractual details about under what sort of circumstances this footage can be viewed and by whom.

Also there was something about the way the BB lady spoke about what happened (to Jeremy when he was being chucked out) which suggests that she had seen it.